Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I would not say their 2nd Amendment is an unnecessary relic. With how much violence there is in American society compared to European societies, I think they are justified in their weapons (of course, this is a vicious cycle since the weapons are the reason for the higher than normal violence in the first place). I know I'd want to have a weapon if I ever were to go there. Judging from the responses of Americans in this and previous threads, it seems to be a pretty ingrained part of their culture.
I don't think you or I can really understand it.

The phrase that springs to mind that "When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

The actual expression is "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".

Fortunately, guns aren't all we have. We have many tools for different problems. Guns are a solution to a specific set of problems, and its important to have the right tool for the right job.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The actual expression is "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".

Fortunately, guns aren't all we have. We have many tools for different problems. Guns are a solution to a specific set of problems, and its important to have the right tool for the right job.

You can't really blame him. People who don't have guns and never have had them (even Americans) seem to have a very hard time imagining what it is like to actually possess them. They tend to imagine that most gun owners are always looking for an excuse to use them or something like that, hence the hammer and nails quote getting thrown about regularly. While I wouldn't say that there aren't a handful of people who may feel that way, in my experience, the truth is actually the exact opposite.

Similarly it's very hard for people from non permissive countries to associate gun ownership with "freedom" and "rights", which I believe can lead to friction.

 Elemental wrote:


The phrase that springs to mind that "When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

and when a situation arises where you need to put in a bunch of nails in but you have no hammer, you get screwed!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To continue the smoking tangent, legislation is still being produced on smoking. The latest proposal in the UK is to ban smoking in public open spaces like streets and parks.

Lots of people are switching to e-cigs, prompting calls for legislation on vaping. Some buildings have already introduced bans on vaping that mirror the legal bans on 'real' smoking.

Yeah, and here in Oz we just made advertising cigarettes so tightly controlled that you can't even put nice colours on the packets. Smokers have reported that without the nice packet the cigarette actually tastes worse, which is really weird.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:
You can't really blame him. People who don't have guns and never have had them (even Americans) seem to have a very hard time imagining what it is like to actually possess them. They tend to imagine that most gun owners are always looking for an excuse to use them or something like that, hence the hammer and nails quote getting thrown about regularly. While I wouldn't say that there aren't a handful of people who may feel that way, in my experience, the truth is actually the exact opposite.

I think there’s a lot of weird ideas on both sides. On the one hand, people outside the US have such a hyper-violent image of the US – Iron Captain said he’d want a gun to feel safe there, and if I recall correctly he’s from Russia so that’s kind of hilarious.

On the other side, you have a lot of Americans who really have no idea that the US is actually has a lot more murders than other developed countries. In probably 90% of the gun control threads I have to repeat the same basic stats to some disbelieving Americans.

Back in 2008 when Obama first got elected and then later in 2012 after the Sandy Hook shooting there was a run on AR15 type rifles and other semiauto rifles that people suspected could be targeted by another "assault weapon" ban. This also led to a run on ammunition as people sought to stock up and/or find good deals on rifles and ammo as an investment that could be resold on the secondary market for profit. WalMart was a popular store for ammo and ARs because when everyone else was raising prices to reflect increased demand WalMart kept their prices the same. People would flock to WalMart anytime they heard they had ammo or ARs in stock and buy them out in a day. My local WalMart had to enact a policy limitting people to only 1 or 2 boxes of specific calibers so the supply would last.

Now, the market has calmed down, there are multiple options for people who want to spend $500-$700 on an AR15 or spend less and buy the parts and build it themselves. Ammo, while not as cheap and abundant as it used to be is much easier to get too. When WalMart was selling $700-800 ARs when everyone else had jacked their price up to $1000+ they sold out their stock no problem. Now, the ARs don't fly off the shelves at WalMart so they're not going to invest the money in carrying them anymore. That's standard practice for the retail giant in all their departments. If it doesn't sell they don't waste shelf space on it.

WalMart isn't taking a political stance on anything here. WalMart still sells rifles and ammunition and individuals can still buy more than enough of both to be fully equipped to commit all kinds of crimes if they so chose.

We don't need to view everything through the lense of Us vs Them politics.

 Hordini wrote:
People who don't have guns and never have had them (even Americans) seem to have a very hard time imagining what it is like to actually possess them. They tend to imagine that most gun owners are always looking for an excuse to use them or something like that, hence the hammer and nails quote getting thrown about regularly. While I wouldn't say that there aren't a handful of people who may feel that way, in my experience, the truth is actually the exact opposite.

Well, that's true for a lot of things thanks to the ages-old "bad news sell". You won't see international headlines when a responsible gun owner stops a robber without shooting him fifteen times, but the rare school shooting rampage or crazy guy who baits a burglar so he can justify killing him do make headlines. "I've had a gun for 20 years and never had to pull it" - what kind of news is that?

Prestor Jon wrote:
We don't need to view everything through the lense of Us vs Them politics.

Sir, I think you came to the wrong place. That's all OT does.

Prestor Jon wrote:
. Now, the ARs don't fly off the shelves at WalMart so they're not going to invest the money in carrying them anymore. That's standard practice for the retail giant in all their departments. If it doesn't sell they don't waste shelf space on it.

WalMart isn't taking a political stance on anything here. WalMart still sells rifles and ammunition and individuals can still buy more than enough of both to be fully equipped to commit all kinds of crimes if they so chose.

We don't need to view everything through the lense of Us vs Them politics.

I don't remember them making a statement to the press about removing that weird shape of tupperware that never sold. Or when they phase out old Lego sets, or gaming consoles, or any other product. They wanted everyone to know what they were doing. How is that not political?

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
We don't need to view everything through the lense of Us vs Them politics.

Sir, I think you came to the wrong place. That's all OT does.

Hell, the fact this thread is about guns already only saved us 3 or 4 pages of foreplay.

This thread was always about guns.

Spetulhu wrote:
Well, that's true for a lot of things thanks to the ages-old "bad news sell". You won't see international headlines when a responsible gun owner stops a robber without shooting him fifteen times, but the rare school shooting rampage or crazy guy who baits a burglar so he can justify killing him do make headlines. "I've had a gun for 20 years and never had to pull it" - what kind of news is that?

What? Self-defence shooting make the news all the time.

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
We don't need to view everything through the lense of Us vs Them politics.

Sir, I think you came to the wrong place. That's all OT does.

Is there truly any other way?

 sebster wrote:

What? Self-defence shooting make the news all the time.

"Not shooting fifteen times" was perhaps too much hyperbole, my bad. I meant situations where no one was shot at all, or the gun owner didn't even have to point the gun at someone. Self-defense shootings make the news too and they don't really make it look better when, for example, some kid with a knife is shot over a pair of shoes.

Spetulhu wrote:

 sebster wrote:

What? Self-defence shooting make the news all the time.

"Not shooting fifteen times" was perhaps too much hyperbole, my bad. I meant situations where no one was shot at all, or the gun owner didn't even have to point the gun at someone. Self-defense shootings make the news too and they don't really make it look better when, for example, some kid with a knife is shot over a pair of shoes.

Was it before or after he said "Do you have one of these?!" situation?

 Lord Corellia wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
It's hard to believe, but Walmart sucks even more now.
I'll get my "Assault Rifles" elsewhere.
People often forget this part of the 2nd A.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It's pretty clear. The People, meaning everyone. Shall not be infringed. The founding fathers thought that it was quite important. Reading their writings they thought an armed populace was necessary for a free society.

Did the founding fathers have knowledge of 30-round magazines and firing off that many shots in as many seconds? In their day, a professional could maybe manage three shots in a minute. That's neither here nor there though.

To me, having the lowest common denominator selling this type of firearm is worrying. The staff there don't really care and aren't really accountable. Was all the proper paperwork filled out? Was a background check done? The pimple-faced kid making eight bucks an hour doesn't give a damn. THAT'S where I get wary.

They also didn't know about the internet but Freedom of Speech does and should still apply to that.
The purpose of the 2nd A was as a check and balance to the government. Modern weapons are needed for that. Saying "all you need is a musket" is ignoring the entire purpose of the 2nd.

Yep, it was originally put in there to stop a government from ruling over it's people by force. Now the actual usefulness of that nowadays is doubtful at best but that was it's original purpose.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yep, it was originally put in there to stop a government from ruling over it's people by force. Now the actual usefulness of that nowadays is doubtful at best but that was it's original purpose.

Untrained thugs without proper military equipment have held off the largest military in the world for over a decade.
Imagine what military veterans could do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yep, it was originally put in there to stop a government from ruling over it's people by force. Now the actual usefulness of that nowadays is doubtful at best but that was it's original purpose.

Out of genuine curiosity, why would you say this?

Folks like the Talibs and Jaish al-Mahdi seemed to hold their own against conventional forces...

And we are currently seeing cops getting gunned down by punks with hand guns and little to no organization.

It took days for state and fed troops to get control of neighborhoods during the LA riots, and that was not really an organized rebellion by any means (again, mostly punks intent on looting which means they were not very actively targeting authority and infrastructure and were not very well organized or led or trained.) David Koresh and his followers held off the Feds for quite a while, and did so while in a state of siege where they had given up freedom of maneuver and initiative.

I hope to heck our country is never in the position where 2nd amendment rights need to be applied to the original purpose, but I don't see such a scenario as being a walk over for the authorities by any means.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yep, it was originally put in there to stop a government from ruling over it's people by force. Now the actual usefulness of that nowadays is doubtful at best but that was it's original purpose.

Untrained thugs without proper military equipment have held off the largest military in the world for over a decade.
Imagine what military veterans could do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

I can't even get two veterans in the same room to agree on what channel to watch on the TV.

 d-usa wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yep, it was originally put in there to stop a government from ruling over it's people by force. Now the actual usefulness of that nowadays is doubtful at best but that was it's original purpose.

Untrained thugs without proper military equipment have held off the largest military in the world for over a decade.
Imagine what military veterans could do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

I can't even get two veterans in the same room to agree on what channel to watch on the TV.

And yet a couple of kids with pressure cookers, firecrackers and a handgun or two had a whole city tied up for days...

 CptJake wrote:


I hope to heck our country is never in the position where 2nd amendment rights need to be applied to the original purpose, but I don't see such a scenario as being a walk over for the authorities by any means.

They'll have infringed upon our rights enough by then to make it easier than it would be now, I'm sure. All in the name of "common sense" and "safety".

But yes, there are many folks who would oppose such a thing with whatever means they have.

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yep, it was originally put in there to stop a government from ruling over it's people by force. Now the actual usefulness of that nowadays is doubtful at best but that was it's original purpose.

Out of genuine curiosity, why would you say this?

Folks like the Talibs and Jaish al-Mahdi seemed to hold their own against conventional forces...

And we are currently seeing cops getting gunned down by punks with hand guns and little to no organization.

It took days for state and fed troops to get control of neighborhoods during the LA riots, and that was not really an organized rebellion by any means (again, mostly punks intent on looting which means they were not very actively targeting authority and infrastructure and were not very well organized or led or trained.) David Koresh and his followers held off the Feds for quite a while, and did so while in a state of siege where they had given up freedom of maneuver and initiative.

I hope to heck our country is never in the position where 2nd amendment rights need to be applied to the original purpose, but I don't see such a scenario as being a walk over for the authorities by any means.

Because the likelihood of our government oppressing us to the point where rebellion is the solution is zero-none. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be useful if oppression led to rebellion (although at that point, they already would have done away with the 2nd so the point is moot), I'm saying there is not way that will happen. Even if they tired, I'm sure the vast majority of out soldiers would defect in any case.

The possibility is far greater than zero. Things can change pretty quickly and saying it could never happen is wrong.

Guns are like parachutes. I hope I never have to use them, but I'll be glad they're there if I do need them.

That our government will become totalitarian, and we'll be saved because of the 2nd amendment? Yeah, that's never going to happen.

a. The idea of our government doing that is laughable. They'd never be able to come to power in the first place. It would require either getting rid of the constitution/bill of rights which you'd never be able to get enough support from the states to do, or just ignoring it, and nobody would obey you then, not even your own military.

and

b. if a totalitarian government rose to power, you realize the first thing they would do is disarm the citizenry.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
That our government will become totalitarian, and we'll be saved because of the 2nd amendment? Yeah, that's never going to happen.

a. The idea of our government doing that is laughable. They'd never be able to come to power in the first place. It would require either getting rid of the constitution/bill of rights which you'd never be able to get enough support from the states to do, or just ignoring it, and nobody would obey you then, not even your own military.

and

b. if a totalitarian government rose to power, you realize the first thing they would do is disarm the citizenry.

a. They're trying to get rid of the 2nd amendment. I'd say they're attacking the Constitution. And its impossible for a country to become totalitarian or is America somehow exempt from this?
b. That's why we're opposed to gun control. It's the first step.

As evidence, I submit every dictatorship ever. Saying it would never happen in America is the exact type of complacency that would allow it to happen.

Second, while yes, a totalitarian government would try to disarm the citizens, it would be easier said than done. Of course, it can be done slowly. Like through the legislation that gets constantly proposed by left leaning people, chipping away a little bit at a time.

But even if you get it passed, you're going to actually have to go out and find all the guns. That is pretty much going to be a physical impossibility in a country the size of the US. People will just hide their guns away if that happens.

a. Of course not, it's just so unlikely to not even be a factor. I don't see other strong democratic countries with mass gun control (UK, Japan, ect. ) turning into dictatorships any time soon, do you?

b. False equivalence. Just because two groups would do the same thing, does not mean they have the same goals.


That being said, I'm not pro-gun control, I'm just saying that the 2nd's original intent doesn't really mean much anymore. I'm not even saying it should be repealed just that it isn't important for the purpose it was orignally.




Edit: Also, do you guys seriously thing that gun control groups are doing what they doing for the purpose of disarming the citizenry to impose dictatorships.? Because if so, that's hilarious.